So it's a difficult issue to interpret, but I'm inclined to think that most 'common-sense' analyses are going to miss the mark.
— Wayfarer

So, commonsense analyses "miss the mark" and obfuscation doesn't? Where would that leave us, philosophically speaking? — Janus

If it were commonsense we wouldn’t need a religious authority to obfuscate it for us. In other words, religious authority is based on access to uncommon knowledge, therefore there must always be uncommon knowledge. It seems to be an essential aspect of religiosity.

That you’re a poor critical thinker is not a surprise to anyone on this forum. It’s senseless to insinuate that critical thinking is not appropriate or valued here.
- praxis


The bad faith, straw men and ad homs do not help your case. — NOS4A2

You began participating in this topic with:

The anti-Trump cult, who don’t have far to look for consensus and propaganda to affirm their beliefs, have been crying wolf for years now.

Whether it was the next Hitler, economic collapse, nuclear war, the prophecies have all proven false and their fears unjustified.

To cover for their mass hysteria, they have resorted to the worst kind of contextomy and tweet-policing.

And now you’ve got the nerve to talk about bad faith and logical fallacies? Yet another demonstration of poor critical thinking. Even a troll needs to be at least somewhat consistent.

You should have said ‘less’ if that’s the claim you wanted to make, yes, obviously.

I don’t need to conform to your understanding. The meaning is quite clear so long as you refuse to remove half the argument. — NOS4A2

That you’re a poor critical thinker is not a surprise to anyone on this forum. It’s senseless to insinuate that critical thinking is not appropriate or valued here.

Perhaps I should have said “less” instead of little, — NOS4A2

You should have said ‘less’ if that’s the claim you wanted to make, yes, obviously.

No internet search will compare legitimate criticism to the sensationalism, so that’s a false claim. — NOS4A2

You claim that there is “little” criticism of Trump failing to fulfill campaign promises over the last few years. Anyone with access to the internet can see how false this claim is.

Your perspective is probably skewed from only reading news from Brietbart or similar “news” outlets.

Pointing out failed promises would be a legitimate criticism, but a simple glance of the news over the past few years show little of such criticism, and more sensationalism regarding tweets and statements. — NOS4A2

I guess you don’t realize that anyone can do an internet search and see how false this claim is for themselves.

And about Trump tweets and sensationalism, that is the entire point of his tweets, is it not? Everyone knows they’re sensationalized crap. You seem to imply this yourself.

And how can you criticize others for doing what he does on a daily basis? Did AOC, for example, actually say that the American people were trash?

Buddhism is deep and profound and I've always held way for the possibility that it's the only route to enlightenment that takes you all the way there... — hillsofgold

No one can effectively practice towards a goal if they don’t know what the goal is. No one knows what “enlightenment” is.

All his critics have are word policing and word politics. — NOS4A2

Not to mention all the campaign promises he failed to deliver on. Oh wait, those promises were just words. Okay, I see your point.

If you can’t say what something is then it’s safe to say that you don’t know what that thing is. That’s not a problem in religion, in fact it may be a requirement.



Aren’t you the big risk taker. :grin:

Soooooooo.... what is it?

Well, even Buddhists don’t know what enlightenment is so you’re in good company.

Weird to accept that there is “enlightenment,” and that there’s a method to achieve enlightenment, by the mere authority of a man, and then doubt the method he laid out.

Anti-trumpism leads the thinker to blame the world’s ills, not to mention their fears, on a single individual man. — NOS4A2

Anti means opposed to or against, simply. Any progressive liberal would be opposed to Trumps agenda.

Either Trump is a great sorcerer or they’ve subscribed to magical thinking.

Or you’ve been watching too much Fox News.

The rest of their criticism stems from political correctness and base snobbery, as it was taught to them by Washington and Hollywood elites.

How can a critique of Trumps failures be based on being PC and snobbish?

Where does this thing exist? Let me guess, it exists in a ‘formless realm’.
— praxis

No, it exists in relationship. — Wayfarer

“Relationship” isn’t a where, but you know that of course.

You’re not doing a good job at appearing that this stuff actually makes sense to you. If it made sense to you then you’d be able to talk about it freely and sensibility, rather than behaving like you’re trying to conceal nonsense.

And that makes sense to you?
— praxis

Sure, in the context. There is not a single thing that exists independently or in isolation from everything else. — Wayfarer

This “continual and enduring personality” that you speak of apparently does. Where does this thing exist? Let me guess, it exists in a ‘formless realm’. The whole point of a formless realm is to put things that exist independently or in isolation from everything else.

What it provides is a continual and enduring personality in the absence of an individual self, or atman. — Wayfarer

And that makes sense to you?

Whether it was the next Hitler, economic collapse, nuclear war, the prophecies have all proven false and their fears unjustified. — NOS4A2

A few prophecies that were spot on:

• Mexico didn’t pay for a “huge” beautiful new wall (concrete and steal).
• Obamacare wasn’t repealed and replaced, with republican majority in the house and senate, no less.
• Taxes were reduced for the rich (Trump promised to raise them, or at least that the rich, which includes himself, wouldn’t be favored).

... assuming that all Christians are fundamentalist... — Wayfarer

Dawkins doesn’t make this assumption. While verifying that online I ran across the curious notion of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Stephen Jay Gould describes it as follows:

Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.

Oddly, according to the principal it could not be considered a factual principle until its scientifically proven, and that’s never going to happen.

Religious people are so goofy.

You’ve not made an argument that I’m any sort of fundamentalist. If you’re going to make a wild claim like that you should at least try to support it.

You make a wild claim that you haven’t even begun to explain, that I’m some sort of fundamentalist and that explains everything I say about the subject of science and religion, and then cower away and refuse to engage further. I would like to think that you’re better than that. I think that you used to be better than that.

We both know that you cannot make a convincing argument that I’m any sort of fundamentalist. It is your dishonesty and cowardice that prevents you from even trying.

Your mental contortions are quite unnecessary, Wayfarer, but if it makes you feel good to think of me as some kind of fundamentalist then be my guest. :smile:

It’s a myth that ‘science disproves religion’ in any general sense. Sure, science undermines many forms of religious belief,... — Wayfarer

Science simply disproves many religious beliefs, such as with evolution and other scientific discoveries that the people who invented world religions had no clue about, so it's not a myth.

... but questions as to whether the Universe is animated by an underlying cause are quite out of reach for science.

Such questions are within the reach of human imagination, and the imagination of scientists is just as good as the imagination of some goofy religious dude in robes.

Some people taste like bitter herbs, like S. — Noah Te Stroete

He’s more spicy than astringent. In fact, if memory serves, S is short for sriracha, a chili sauce that thinks it can burn but ends up being merely mildly amusing.

I question why secular Buddhism even exists, when under a 'one life and done' model, the path leading to the cessation of Dukkha is mere bodily death. — Inyenzi

All sorts of teleological narratives could replace rebirth. Can you explain why a different narrative would be any less effective?

He was an oddity, but I think he added a certain flavor to the forum that wasn’t without value. — Noah Te Stroete

Bubble gum cherry apple?

I don't think it's necessary to believe in rebirth to benefit from practicing Buddhist principles. You can bracket out such beliefs. Not that I think there's nothing in them, but they're culturally alien in some ways. — Wayfarer

There are many aspects of Buddhism that is culturally alien, but are nevertheless consistent with our reality.

The curious fact is that everyone must “bracket out” rebirth because no one can explain it. We can only believe in [it].

Re-birth - obviously a very controversial aspect of Buddhism in the West, where 'belief in reincarnation' is culturally taboo (on two grounds, one religious, one scientific). — Wayfarer

That’s a silly way to phrase it, as though Westerners reject the notion because it’s “culturally taboo,” :razz: rather than it simply being inconsistent with popular Western religious beliefs, science, or plain reason. I guess it could be taboo in some underdeveloped subcultures, but then Buddhism would be rejected in its entirety in such a place, I imagine.

(meaning/value, what's the difference) — JosephS

Meaning includes values, of course, but it also includes narrative, and perhaps purpose. Self-identity also seems to be integral.

Value is simply the worth of something, or the amount of attraction or repulsion a being may have for something. It could be said, for example, that a plant values sunlight, and this is expressed in its bending towards it.

I look at the world as being replete with meaning, not as lacking it. — Janus

I do too.

I still maintain a distinction between a tablet that is inscribed with hieroglyphics that had ikonic or symbolic meaning to whoever inscribed it, and one which has been inscribed with marks which had no ikonic or symbolic meaning. — Janus

Your meaning is clear, however the case of an ancient inscriber deliberately making random marks that appear to be hieroglyphics is curious. I imagine it takes quite a bit of effort to inscribe marks on a stone tablet. Also, that the marks appear to be hieroglyphs implies a significant degree of order. The amount of effort and the designed order both suggest intention or purpose. Even if the intention was to make a faux tablet, for decoration or a prop, or perhaps to fool people, the object served a purpose and was meaningful in that regard.

Of course it could be deciphered more or less correctly or incorrectly, but that possibility does not exist in the case of the meaningless marks; we would simply be making a mistake if we tried to decipher it. — Janus

As I suggested, maybe the purpose is to try making others attempt to decipher it.

To further demonstrate my point, I defy you, or anyone, to reply to this post with a meaningless response.

In a sense, that’s why people are far more likely to donate a kidney, for example, to a niece or nephew than they are to some rando kid.

It only makes sense if you actually want to have children or whatever. If those things are actually meaningful to you, rather than you merely adopting social cues as to what's meaningful.

The so-called 'selfish genes' doesn't much care if you propagate your genes because it knows that you have siblings and such, who's genes are practically the same as your own. As long as you're supportive of them the selfish genes are selfishly happy.

This whole no pain no gain mindset for non body building situations has to be put to rest, in my opinion. What do you guys think? — Alan

The best way to develop any skill, be it physical or mental, is to work just beyond your comfort zone.

I'm seriously considering meditation as mentioned by Praxis in a previous post — Alan

Assuming you are serious, the best short and concise meditation guide that I know of is The Rinzai Zen Way: A Guide to Practice. There's a practice section, which just deals with meditation. You don't need to be interested in Zen to benefit from it. Some key points in the practice section are:

• Abdominal breathing is essential - helps to relax the subconscious by stimulating the vagus nerve.
• Relaxation is important and there are some techniques described in the book. You may want to explore hypnosis, additionally, to help relax the subconscious.

A great meditation app: Insight Timer

Also, you'll get the fastest results if you take a holistic approach. Our emotional lives are inextricably linked to our diet, so if you have a poor diet with too little fiber and too much refined sugar, that will hamper your efforts.

The real trick is to calm an overactive or overstimulated subconscious and basically recondition it to respond appropriately to circumstances, rather than responding maladaptively. This overactivity may be linked to an overactive DMN. Meditation can help manages these.

If successful, you should start to feel generally more relaxed, which is pleasant, and a kind of 'spaciousness' in your reactions. The sense of spaciousness may be due to getting in the habit of watching your mind in meditation. Also, you'll actually feel things more strongly, good and bad, but again there will be a spaciousness and the feelings will pass much more readily.

What do you think is your cage? — virginia west

A culture that values material wealth over meaning. This culture is instilled in me, so the cage exists in my own mind as well as the minds of others.

I suspect that the sloppiness of your monologues may be due to a lack of feedback. In that case, you'll need to develop the discipline to tighten them up yourself.

I don’t know what you mean by state intervention or a large scale reset. We were last talking about a mixed economy, as I recall.

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

No, this is wrong, for the very obvious reason that the relationship between cause and effect is meaningless without value and purpose. One thing does not cause another thing to happen. Causes are identified based on our values and goals.

Meaning is everywhere, possibly the fabric of reality itself. — Harry Hindu

What is that supposed to mean?

If nothing had meaning then there would be no way for us to communicate, as communication requires shared meaning. Your scribbles on the screen mean something that I try to get at when I look at them. They mean the ideas in your head and your intent to share them with others as that is what caused the scribbles to appear on the screen. — Harry Hindu

Communication requires shared values and goals. That's what makes communication possible. If an alien intelligence with entirely different values and goals tied to communicate with us, even the most basic forms of communication would appear nonsensical or meaningless.

Humans are very versatile (thanks to their large brains an opposable thumbs) and the variety of ways in which we choose to be successful organisms can make it seem like we have transcended our biology, but that is an illusion. — Harry Hindu

Then how are choices, such as religious celibacy, hunger-striking, or simply suicide, possible?

Sounds like you find meaning in being a good parent. Why would you think this is absurd or deserving of criticism or insults? — Harry Hindu

Because of the incongruity between his desire for meaning and the apparent lack of meaning in the world that he lives in.

It doesn’t eliminate the threat. It helps to stabilize, as I mentioned, and cushion downturns.

The Great Depression ring a bell?

History indicates that it tends to be efficient but not necessarily fit. The inherent instability can be stabilized with a mixed economy.

I didnt get what you meant. — Harry Hindu

I seriously don’t know if I can believe that at this point.

Because it is logically inconsistent.

What is the inconsistency? I asked you before what the error was and you failed to point it out. Are you just trolling?

Maybe your hostility expresses a frustration with an intellectual or existentialist approach to dealing with the absurd. There are only two ways, as I mentioned earlier, to effectively deal with it. Either pragmatically develop meaning in your life and/or transcend it through contemplative practice. Those are the only real choices.

Your arguments are pathetic.

I don’t recall making an argument in this topic, at least not in dealing with you.